Seeking to replicate the performance of an index by trading a basket of stocks/futures/options is not active management.
For instance, when an institutional investor gives SPDR say, $300,000,000 for a million shares of SPY, the fund goes out at purchases the underlying stocks in proportions that match the composition of the S&P 500, and then issues the SPY shares and holds the underlying and dividend payments in trust. SPDR does not have the option to choose the shares, they purchase a basket that replicates the S&P 500.
This is passive management, there is no one actively picking stocks, and when to buy/sell them.
I will assume your interest is genuine, here are links to the documents explaining the methodology behind the various S&P[0] and DJ indices[1]. I'm sure you can find documents for /RUT and IWM (Russell 2000), as well as /NQ and QQQ (Nasdaq 100) if you would like to see those as well.
The point, with which I agree, is that it's still active, just much less so. It's a bit pedantic, but assuming ETFs are passive by definition could get people crushed when these themed tickers get outflows.
I'm not claiming all ETFs are passive by definition, or without risk.
ETFs do have additional liquidity risk that mutual funds lack. If liquidity is lacking, it could lead to the bid falling below NAV, potentially quite significantly, and investors who chose to sell at that point in time would be losing additional money.
Mutual fund sales are processed at NAV at the end of the market day when the sale takes place, which ensures you will receive the NAV when you sell.
ETFs allow more flexibility, with the drawback of possibly trading below NAV or above NAV, which can be good or bad depending on if you are buying or selling.
If the price of the ETF falls too far below NAV, big traders will scoop up the ETF shares to redeem for the discounted underlying stocks as an arbitrage play, bringing the ETF's price closer to the NAV.
"huge marketing campaign advertising a car that doesn't exist"
Perhaps they are trying to gauge the likely success of the car before some final production decisions are made.
You do have to wonder how Tesla is going to survive the first surge of practical mass-market electric cars. They definitely are riding some sort of tiger while trying to build out marketshare, technology, infrastructure.
My money is on Toyota but would be thrilled to be wrong.
1. They're way ahead of everyone else in terms of energy efficiency. Compare a Model S or X to the Jaguar iPace or Audi e-tron - the Tesla gets 30-50% more range out of the same size battery. That's a big gap.
2. Super chargers - other manufacturers have to rely on really spotty networks of third-party charging stations that are unreliable, and add friction for their customers (have to have the right card and the right connector, etc.). Teslas super chargers are in all the right places, are stupid easy to use, and always work.
3. Tesla actually wants to sell EVs. The other manufacturers are hamstrung with their legacy product groups. They're just dipping their toes in the water trying to figure out how to make the transition without 'Osborning' themselves, or doing the minimum to satisfy California regulations. Tesla is all-in and innovating at a much faster pace.
Tesla will be fine as a niche manufacturer. Jaguar's been around for a long time and they've always been a low volume manufacturer. Tesla can be the same.
> 1. They're way ahead of everyone else in terms of energy efficiency.
The Hyundai Kona, Kia Niro EV, and the Kia Soul EV all achieve good range at a lower price point than Tesla offers.
> 2. Super chargers - other manufacturers have to rely on really spotty networks of third-party charging stations that are unreliable
Mercedes in Europe has agreements with the European charging networks to allow all charging billing to be done through the owner's Mercedes Me account.
At this point it would be much better if Tesla switched their chargers and cars to CCS instead of persisting with a proprietary plug. If Tesla is interested in promoting EV usage (which they claim is their mission) then they will also allow all EVs to charge at their chargers, just like Teslas can charge at CCS chargers today.
Really? The gap isn’t that much, about $2200 looking at a before subsidy price. And the interior of the korean EVS are pretty cheap compared to the model 3, so if tesla wanted to they could make a tesla that uses cheap materials and doesn’t ship with special sensors. Call it the model 1.
What holds me back is more a unknown / bad record of reliability with tesla and a lack of charging infrastructure in apartments for me.
> so if tesla wanted to they could make a tesla that uses cheap materials and doesn’t ship with special sensors. Call it the model 1.
Could they? So why don't they? The 35k Model 3 didn't go too well. Why will this Model 1 do better for Tesla?
It's difficult to target multiple segments simultaneously. You need the scale of a company like Volkswagen to do it successfully. Tesla is headed for a decision point on the kind of car company they want to be. They'll probably choose to stay low volume:
The reason why is because they were not targeting creating a low end bog standard plastic cheap car that the kona represents for the model 3. The cabin differences would have to be too big to deliver it as a trim.
Technologically I would see the model 1 being mostly the same platform as the model 3 with a cabin expressly designed for cheapness everywhere. So standard handles, standard ac, a 2 din stereo, everything plastic, only mirrors and cloth and no power seats. Kind of like the iphone xr with aluminum and an LCD. Make a platform variation is not that difficult.
That would make it bridge the gap and probably beat the kona price wise
> The cabin differences would have to be too big to deliver it as a trim.
So it's too difficult for Tesla to deliver. You agree with me: Hyundai's got Tesla beat on range at the price point.
> That would make it bridge the gap and probably beat the kona price wise
"Probably" is not a practical reality. The car you're talking about doesn't exist. The Kona EV, the Niro EV, and the Soul EV do exist. Hyundai is ahead here.
Tesla is first to market on a lot of fronts and has the huge first-mover advantage, but you're right, when the competition gets real the easy wins will be over.
It has been said -- many times -- that the actual major advantage of Tesla cars is that they get better over time by virtue of their software update process. While many many of the big players (VW, Toyota, Honda, etc.) are going to match specs when it comes to battery range and whatnot, I haven't seen any indications that any of them intend to follow suit with the software.
My 2 year old Toyota already feels like it is locked in the stone age when it comes to the software and features.
> While many many of the big players (VW, Toyota, Honda, etc.) are going to match specs when it comes to battery range and whatnot, I haven't seen any indications that any of them intend to follow suit with the software.
I'm hoping for the opposite, a return to basics, reliability and separation of concerns, not 3 billion lines of code running every single part of the car with a transistor - sure electric engines need some fundamental low level software and computer, and you can argue it's more fundamental to the engine than modern ICE computers.. but the whole infotainment center hub network bullshit, I'd really rather not have it all tied together, give me the machine, and independently some electrics like windows, mirrors, radio... if there must be a media center, at least make it separate from the computer that makes the car operate.
... and if you hadn't guessed, i'm obviously not an autopilot/selfdriving proponent so I don't care about that argument for integration.
In a the world of music equipment (synths in particular), it went like this:
--70s: twisty knobs and flicky switches.
--80s: We got CPU's now! Forget knobs, we got button arrays now.
--90s: We got LCDs now! Forget buttons, here's one rotary control and menus on menus.
--00s: If you pay us a lot, your menus will be on a touchscreen! Neat? No?
.....No?
:(
--10's: twisty knobs and flicky switches.
Walk into Guitar Center synth section, it's all about spaceship-kind of controls (one physical component for one parameter, and tons of blinkenlights).
It turned out (suprise!) that all those menu-driven controls are cheaper and easier to make, but were not what the users needed nor enjoyed.
These days, it's all about the analog equipment having digital control with a physical, tactile user interface (and no menus except for some niche parameters).
It really looks like cars are following the same path.
If cars are to follow synthesizers, the next step is a Eurorack-style modular dashboard where you can fit instruments and controls from a wide variety of vendors that adhere to some basic standards and interact mostly via analog voltages.
Re-patching your dash while you're driving is probably taking the metaphor a bit too far, though.
This sounds awfully lot like the car stereos from the 90 that you can change with aftermarket ones, and you can remove the front part so nobody steals it from you.
I would pay for my car to NEVER update without my express approval. That is the definition of "my" - I get to decide how and when it changes. In fact, i think i will do just that. I might pick up one of these ID cars and thus vote with my wallet.
I am no EV fanboy, but this one looks like a practical second car fit for simple short-range missions
> I would pay for my car to NEVER update without my express approval.
In case you were wondering, you opt-in to the updates from Tesla and can totally disable all connectivity if you so choose.
Virtually no one does this, because the upgrades are extremely valuable to Tesla owners and make the car accelerate quicker, brake faster, safer (constantly improving things like AEB and lane departure warning), longer range, more comfortable (suspension upgrades), and better in many other ways from minor usability tweaks (position of the phone icon in the launcher) to major functional upgrades.
OTA updates are also the only responsible way to deliver autonomous functionality.
It’s a huge asset and differentiator for Tesla. That’s not to say it won’t have detractors. E.g. Some people prefer driving stick.
yes, or more directly pull the fuse. But as the other poster said, the updates are fantastic, you get useful new functionality and my 5 year car has huge numbers of useful things that weren't in the original car.
Toyota and BMW both are dragging their heels with EVs and are mostly focusing on hybrids and hydrogen. IMHO both are a dead end and an expensive mistake.
Battery prices and range are on track to improve for the foreseeable future and most other manufacturers are basically preparing to massively increase production of the dozens of EVs they announced in the next few years. There are very few manufacturers left that are not fully committed to EVs at this point. Toyota, Mazda, BMW, Fiat, and a few others basically.
BMW already is signalling they expect issues with market share, growth, profit etc. and just appointed a new CEO to fix this. In other words, they are late to this game, they know it, and are now acting to fix this. I know less about Toyota but they seem to be very stubbornly ignoring battery EVs so far. IMHO that signals long term trouble for them as well. Unless they find a way to catch up in a hurry. Either way, they are late and the rest of the industry is not waiting for them. IMHO Nissan and Honda, are in much better shape.
For most manufacturers the key game the next ten years is going to be securing availability of low cost batteries with decent range while balancing that cost with the absolute massive cost of dismantling their legacy manufacturing and supply industry. I expect layoffs directly related to that in Germany may affect tens of thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs across the thousands of companies that make up the car industry and their suppliers over the next decade. BMW just announced layoffs for 6000 in Germany. My guess is that won't be the last time.
Tesla is where they are in the market right now because they decided years ago to produce battery packs in house and recently to also start producing their own battery cells. That gives them a cost and technical advantage. They have no legacy business and every penny that comes in is invested in more production capacity, lowering cost, and improving technology.
VW is investing tens of billions to catch up in the next few years. IMHO this is exactly the right thing to do for them and I think Dieselgate helped speed up the decision making. The ID.3 is an important milestone for them and when they start shipping this in volume in a few years, it will no doubt affect the rest of the industry. They are already talking about Id.4 and my guess is they are not stopping there. I think there's a good chance they might wipe out or flat out absorb a few of their competitors in the process. BMW for example. Meanwhile Tesla has at least five years and probably closer to ten years where they are basically enjoying volume and cost advantages essentially unchallenged. I'd be surprised if they don't establish themselves as one of the top car manufacturers during that time.
BMW has an electric model just like Nissan, Renault. And it's a good car too, albeit kind of weird looking and with limited range. It's quite perfect for city driving, has an optional scooter engine if your battery is dead. I'm not a BMW fan but I like the i3, because it's everything other BMW models aren't. Most traditional car manufacturers are testing the EV waters with compact minis. Tesla is in the US market so of course they had to have a SUV. They don't have a pickup truck though.
Yes, the i3, which they are discontinuing. Most of their lineup is hybrids and ICE vehicles. They do have an electric mini which they recently announced as well as a few more models that they announced. Lets just say they are moving but slowly and rather late.
Yes, they're quite late to the show. Probably because their customers want muscle cars: hooligan M2s, hideous oversized fastback SUVs or luxury sedans. Most of their customer base wants cars with at least 250 mile range to be able to commute with on the autobahn, which they are unable to offer yet. Not EV minis. BMW blamed 20% revenue losses on EV R&D and emissions compiance.
Daimler, a company with similar clientelle, is moving even more slowly. At least they announced the EQC SUV, an EQV van, the EQ sedan. Which are of course all vapour yet. We'll see how good they are when they do arrive. Daimler does have have the truck division to keep them afloat and a two seat supermini, the Smart electric drive, which barely qualifies as a car.
Both are getting a lot of competition from Tesla currently. Apparently some of their former customers want fast electrical vehicles. Also, trucks are going electric. So, Daimler might have a fight on their hand there as well.
Trump's account is a beautiful example of how useless Twitter is.
Typically it goes...
Trump: CONGRATULATIONS ON FIREFIGHTERS FOR MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. THIS ADMINISTRATION IS FOR FIREFIGHTERS!
Followed by 1k responses of YAY TRUMP! and 50k responses of people vomiting up any old thing that's just as insulting as they can cook up. Why on Earth do people waste their time on this sort of thing? It has evolved from keyboard warriorhood to some sort of internet Tourette's.
>Why on Earth do people waste their time on this sort of thing? It has evolved from keyboard warriorhood to some sort of internet Tourette's.
Because the President of the United States has decided that shitposting on Twitter shall be his primary means of communicating with the people, and the courts have decided this means he's not allowed to block anyone from his feed, because the people have a right to hear their governments' words and to petition it with grievances.
What's happening on Twitter is the platform being used as intended by everyone but Trump - it's not supposed to be used for deep, nuanced, complex discussion. It's for posting links and blogging about your food - nonsense that can fit into a couple of sentences. But thanks to him elevating it to a higher status than it deserves, it's now become the nexus for American political communication and debate with this administration.
"I remember seeing a program that claimed this is because soldiers today are trained to kill against their natural instinct.
So traditionally only 20% of soldiers could actually kill, which would explain the low casualty rates in older battles pre-ww2."
That's a good observation, and not one that I thought of, but it does bring up the question of organized combat in the other 95% of human history. It would surprise me if a Roman got much choice in the matter from his friendly local Centurion.
The result is pretty simple. The intelligence agencies become a fourth branch of government and likely the dominant one.
It would be interesting to better understand the dynamics between the military and the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc..
I suppose that one good thing that came out of the 2016 election was that it become more obvious that the intelligence services run their own domestic policy, what I don't understand is how monolithic that newish branch of government is.
French was spoken by the educated classes in much of the Western world for some time, had a largish colonial empire. Holy Roman Empire (neither Roman or Holy or an Empire) had German as a primary language.
It is entirely possible that there could be different types of neutron stars, although the same physics will describe them all. As an analogy, white dwarfs all have the same equation of state, but based on the mass of the white dwarf the electrons can either be relativistic or non-relativistic. (This is not really a true dichotomy, it's just a spectrum.) There could plausibly be something similar with neutron stars.
Most index funds are actively managed.